questioning patterns during discussions in collaborative
TRANSCRIPT
University of ConnecticutOpenCommons@UConn
NERA Conference Proceedings 2014 Northeastern Educational Research Association(NERA) Annual Conference
January 2015
Questioning Patterns during Discussions inCollaborative Groups in SocioeconomicallyDiverse High SchoolsRosa AghekyanRutgers University - New Brunswick/Piscataway, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/nera_2014
Part of the Education Commons
Recommended CitationAghekyan, Rosa, "Questioning Patterns during Discussions in Collaborative Groups in Socioeconomically Diverse High Schools"(2015). NERA Conference Proceedings 2014. 6.https://opencommons.uconn.edu/nera_2014/6
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 1
Questioning Patterns during Discussions in Collaborative Groups in
Socioeconomically Diverse High Schools
Rosa Aghekyan
Rutgers University
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 2
Abstract
The use of higher level questioning by high school students is known to promote problem
solving during group discussions. However, the research on questioning patterns in collaborative
groups is mostly restricted to elementary and middle schools. Not enough is known about
questioning patterns employed by students during group discussions in socioeconomically
diverse high schools. The purpose of this grounded theory study was to fill in that gap. The
research’s goals were to record the questioning patterns used during group discussions of
environmental science topics, find how often students utilize higher level thinking questions and
what the nature of those questions is. The research took four days and showed that the
percentage of higher level questions used by the experimental group in Day 4 was significantly
higher (85%) in comparison to 65% in Day 1.
Keywords: collaborative learning, socioeconomically diverse high schools, questioning
techniques, critical thinking and high level thinking questions
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 3
The use of higher level questioning is well known to promote problem solving during
group discussions because the level of the thinking that occurs in the classroom is the outcome of
the level of questions asked by both students and teachers (King, 1991; King 1995; Zohar,
Degani & Vaaknin, 2001). Regrettably, the research showed that most students do not do well
on tasks that require critical thinking skills (Bailin, 2002). A successful execution of this type of
tasks requires student exposure to learning techniques that incorporate appropriate higher
reasoning and critical thinking strategies (Dam & Valman, 2004). In addition, students have a
better chance to succeed on tasks that require critical thinking when they practice and utilize
critical thinking in several contexts (as cited in Zoller & Pushkin, 2007). However, the research
on discourse patterns in collaborative groups is mostly restricted to elementary and middle
school students, and most findings related to the usage of higher level questioning were
established in that limited context. Not enough is known about the questioning patterns
employed by students during group discussions in socioeconomically diverse high schools. One
of the few studies conducted with underrepresented students in a high school science classroom
showed that those students were given few opportunities to contribute to discourse (Yerrick &
Gilbert, 2011). The same study, which was an ethnographic study, illustrated that the students
were not allowed to express their own opinions but rather were permitted to use other people’s
scientific views. Another study, (Anyon, 1980), showed that students in the working-class
school’s science class may spend most of their time just copying their teacher’s notes from the
board. Even when they did experiment, the teacher often demonstrated the experiment for the
students and wrote on the board their “found” data.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 4
Many researchers argued that educational experience and curriculum knowledge offered
to students vary in different social classes. For example, in the elite school’s science classrooms
students may be required to generate their hypothesis by manipulating the variables, conducting
experiments and providing elaborations and justifications about their found data. Unfortunately,
this may not hold true in poor, urban, or socioeconomically diverse schools. Resnick (1987)
argued in the past that fostering competent thinkers was a target for only a small group of elite
students. The majority of students did not have the luxury of benefiting from the fruits of the
higher order thinking and meaning, thus being denied equal educational opportunities (Zohar &
Dori, 2003). The National Science Standards highlighted the fact that higher order thinking
skills should be offered to all students, which hopefully would narrow the gap between low and
high achieving students (Hollweg & Hill, 2003; NRC, 1996). In particular, it is not evident if
students in urban or socioeconomically diverse high schools make intensive use of thought-
provoking questions. Additionally, it is not clear how asking thought-provoking questions
impacts urban or socioeconomically diverse high school students’ problem solving skills.
Purpose
The purpose of this grounded theory study was to investigate and analyze the questioning
patterns used in student discourse during collaborative group discussions. The grounded theory
was chosen as the method of the qualitative research in this study due to data collection, analysis
and a subsequent formation of the theoretical model (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Data used for this
grounded theory study included students’ writings, video and audio analysis, field notes and
observations. The participants of this study were freshmen from a socioeconomically diverse
high school located in the East Coast studying Environmental Science.
The main research question and secondary questions
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 5
Main question
What questioning patterns are displayed by students during group discussions in
an environmental science class in a socioeconomically diverse high school?
Secondary questions
• What is the nature of questions raised during the discussion?
• How often and under what conditions do socioeconomically diverse high
school students utilize higher level thinking questions in their discourse during
group work?
• How are these questions taken up by students’ peers?
• When higher level thinking questions are used, do they lead to better scientific
explanation?
Significance of the Study
As many researchers and educational advocates stated, (Bell, 2010; Bybee & Fuchs,
2006; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Silva, 2009) students need significantly different educational
skills today than the ones needed in the past century. If the student could read and write in the
20th century, he/she would be considered a literate person. This is not the case anymore. To be
successful in the 21st century, students need certain essential skills like critical thinking and
problem solving skills as well as fluency in technology and data analysis. Therefore, by
cultivating critical thinking skills among students, educators can prepare students to become
‘competent citizens’, which will allow them to make their own critical contributions to the
democratic and modern society (Dam & Volman, 2004). Additionally, because of the
technological advancements, the demand for blue collar workers has decreased whereas the need
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 6
for highly urbane, literate workers has increased (Zohar & Vaaknin, 2001). This observation was
supported by Levy and Murnane (2005) who have indicated that the routine skills are currently
being replaced by the computers. These statements lead to the following conclusion about the
academic learning: it is imperative not only to improve students’ achievement but also to
increase their scientific literacy and critical thinking skills. Scientifically literate citizens can read
and analyze scientific articles written in popular scientific journals and magazines. Their
scientific literacy helps them to understand complex, controversial problems, which either have
no solution at all or have more than one solution. In order to reach to this cognitive level,
students need to have higher order cognitive skills.
As it became apparent from the above-mentioned studies and reports, the students in the
United States should be prepared to be part of the 21st century workforce. This goal can be
achieved by providing our students with a vigorous curriculum, by fostering students’ critical
thinking skills, which in turn will allow students to solve semi-structured problems and become
better decision makers. This approach will assist in the goal of generating higher levels of
scientific and technological literacy among US students (Bybee & Fuchs, 2006). Although the
preparation for the 21st century workforce seems to be a worthy undertaking with promising
outcomes, some critiques find its stated goals universal rather than specific to our current
environment. For example, Silva (2009) argued that critical/creative thinking and analytical
skills were not new for humankind. They were propagated during the Greek civilization
(Socrates), were highlighted in the 20th century (Dewey). Silva also referenced other critiques
who stated that assessing those skills is challenging due to difficulties in applying valid and cost-
effective measurements. In summary, Silva’s viewpoint was labeling these skills as 21st century
skills is misleading since they are not new skills, but rather are newly important.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 7
Students learn the material by doing it (Dewey, 1938). This is even more applicable to
learning science when children learn science by doing science. The PBL (Project-Based
Learning) which is a relatively innovative pedagogical approach for enhancing students’ 21st
century skills, opens wide horizons for students by letting them to learn independently. Not
surprisingly, the main goal of science reform was a switch from lower-order cognitive skills to
the higher-order cognitive skills (Tal et al, 2001). Consequently, some modern testing procedures
use more tasks that require critical thinking skills. For example, some recent End of Course
Biology examinations contain a section where students are asked to design an experiment using
their scientific thinking and reasoning skills.
This study on questioning patterns during group discussions in Environmental Science
class will provide researchers and educators with valuable information to help them to better
understand the inner workings of group discussions in socioeconomically diverse high schools.
This may lead to the development of enhanced educational methods and tools which can better
prepare students for this globalized and hyper-competitive world. In addition, the results of this
study should be applicable to other subjects such as math, language art, social study, etc. In other
words, any questioning pattern and strategy that was successfully utilized in the course of this
study should be valid for other fields too, not only in science education.
Theoretical Framework
Collaborative learning groups were the subject of rigorous research for more than four
decades. Numerous studies in this field of educational research have examined both benefits and
disadvantages of collaboration in groups, its effects on students’ achievement and motivation,
various teaching strategies that promote collaboration, and students’ interactional and discourse
patterns in collaborative groups ( Dennen & Hoadley, 2013; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; King,
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 8
1992; Slavin, 1991; Webb, 1984; Zhang, 2013). These researchers also highlighted that students
learn more via collaborative learning than via traditional, teacher-centered approaches. The
interactions with others help learners to construct, revise and interpret others’ ideas and
viewpoints, something that they could not perform in isolation (Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003).
Moreover, Vygotsky (1978) considered language as a major psychological and cultural tool
which helps learners to formulate new understandings of learning. The results of these studies
supported the notion that collaborative learning leads to better educational outcomes.
Although the early research demonstrated the overall positive impact of collaborative
learning on students’ educational outcomes, it was also apparent that collaboration itself without
any supportive framework could not ensure success. Therefore, it has become essential to study
group interactions and student behaviors that promote learning in collaborative groups. It was
determined that active participation, such as giving and receiving help, sharing knowledge,
engaging in reciprocal questioning, using well-formed reasoning constructs played an important
role in successful collaborative learning. Research showed that students learn not only when they
receive help but they learn even more when they provide elaborated explanations to their peer
who seek help (Webb et al, 2002). In contrast, receiving no elaborated help, such as when getting
just the final answer, negatively relates to students’ achievement (Webb, 1989). As it is evident
from the above, the constructivist-style teaching where students take ownership and teach their
peers may benefit not only the students who receive help but also those students who are
promoting cognitive elaborations. These research findings align well with Roman philosopher
Seneca’s ideas who acknowledged, “Qui Docet Discet,” meaning when you teach you learn
twice.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 9
The appropriate use of thought-provoking, high-level questions during discussions can
greatly help in shaping a discourse that can lead to better collaboration. This study will
thoroughly examine the questioning patterns that occur during group discussions in
socioeconomically diverse high school.
This study draws upon several theoretical perspectives that provide a conceptual
framework that rationalizes why collaboration may promote learning. Following Piaget’s socio-
constructive perspective (DeLisi & Golbeck, 1999), peer interactions in collaborative groups can
create cognitive conflict and, as a result, disrupt equilibrium between assimilation and
accommodation. This in turn may trigger modifications of learner’s cognitive system. Therefore,
reflecting on peer reactions and perspectives provides the necessary means to a learner for
reviewing and refining his/her cognitive system. One of the central concepts in the Vygotskian
socio-cultural perspective (Hogan & Tudge, 1999) was the notion that shared problem solving
during which children learn from more skilled partners, results in higher cognitive functions. For
that reason, children’s collaboration with their more skilled peers can cause cognitive growth.
Less skilled individuals can benefit by getting explanations which help them to clarify and
organize their own thinking (Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003). Cognitive elaboration perspective
focuses on cognitive restructuring (O’Donnell, 2006). According to this approach, interaction
with others may cause learners to restructure their knowledge and understanding.
To recapitulate, collaborative learning is more effective than more traditional learning
approaches. However, collaboration itself does not guarantee success unless it happens in a
supportive framework. It was shown that the appropriate use of higher level, thought-provoking
questions during discussions can lead to better collaboration (Chin & Osborne, 2010; Dori &
Herscovitz, 1999; Wells & Arauz, 2006).
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 10
Asking questions, especially when students pose questions, is considered a great
educational vehicle for all subject areas, specifically in science. It is also embedded in the current
NGSS (NRC; 2013) When students work collaboratively and pose each other questions, then
evaluate each other’s answers, students act like scientists. That is how scientists communicate
together in the real world. Numerous researchers argued that asking questions is a big
component of critical thinking and problem solving. Dorri and Herscovitz (1999) study done
with the 10th graders in the environmental science class required students to pose questions
while practicing several educational tasks, such as interpreting and analyzing graphs, reading
scientific articles, making posters based on their research findings. The post-test results of this
study showed a significant increase in both the number of questions asked and their
quality/complexity. Because of the positive outcome of this study, Dorri and Herscovitz
recommended implementing question generating tasks as an alternative students’
evaluation/assessment method.
The study by Chin & Osborne (2010) found a similar result: questioning serves a key
component in science education. Their study’s QA model (Questioning-Argumentation) revealed
that providing students with opportunities to generate their own questions can elicit challenges
for students. Posing questions to the self and other group members can inseminate cognitive
conflict which may help students in engaging in argumentation by providing a strong evidence,
argument and counterargument. It may also help students in uncovering the connections among
the data, evidence and theory, thus fulfilling one of the aspects of nature of science.
For the above-mentioned reasons, this current study was focused on the questioning
patterns that occurred in the course of group discussions in socioeconomically diverse high
schools.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 11
Literature Review
What is considered good questioning? Is it a skill that students can learn? If students ask
higher-level questions, does it mean they also think critically? Is there a correlation between
good thinkers and good questioners (King, 1995)? Can teachers teach their students to develop,
pose and answer higher-level, critical thinking questions? Can teacher intervention eventually
lead to the situation when students formulate good questions autonomously? These are some key
questions that the researchers, who study high-level questioning in student discourse during
group discussions, want to answer.
Teaching Strategies
When students were asked to formulate questions, they generally came up with low-level,
factual questions (Dillon, 1988; Flammer, 1981). For that reason, it is very important to develop
high-level questioning strategies that can be taught to students so they can start using thought-
provoking, high-level questions during their discourse. The research shows that students develop
deeper understanding, better thinking and learning, when they use or are exposed to higher level
thinking questions (Almeida, 2012; Coutinho & Almeida, 2013; Graesser & Olde, 2003; Kuhn,
2009, Wolfe & Alexander, 2008). These types of questions help students analyze, synthesize,
and evaluate, while they are engaged in problem solving activities. Indeed, students will take a
pragmatic approach toward their problem solving tasks if they formulate higher order thinking
questions prior to tackling the given task. Likewise, students gain deep knowledge when they are
exposed to open ended questions that may have more than one possible answer, or have no
right/wrong answers. Quite the opposite, low level questions require knowledge, memorization,
have right/wrong, already known answers, elicit little or low level learning.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 12
Wolfe and Alexander (2008) argued that challenging students to engage in argumentation
would increase students’ critical thinking and reasoning by empowering students to ask questions
and reflect critically on their newly gained knowledge. Still, the classroom observations showed
that most questioning patterns used in the student discourse were comprised of questions and
answers requiring recollection/restatement of known facts. The findings of Wolfe and Alexander
were consistent with the results of the comparative analyses conducted in five countries:
England, Russia, India, France and United States (Alexander, 2001). In addition, various studies
have consistently showed that most classrooms were dominated by the teacher talk, where only a
few students asked questions (Almeida, 2012; Almeida and Neri de Souza, 2010). Moreover,
only a small percentage of students are able to generate higher order thinking questions whereas
the most questions formulated by students are low level questions which leads to lower
achievement.
What changes in questioning can lead to better educational outcomes? Wolfe (2006)
suggested that teachers should challenge students’ thinking by asking authentic questions and
providing opportunities to students to ask questions as well. Also, fostering student questioning
would help teachers to concentrate on constructivist pedagogy by moving from the teacher-
centered teaching to the student-centered teaching and learning (Almeida, 2012). To make this
transition successful, students may need an explicit and detailed instruction for question
generation: effective questioning techniques will require a proper training of questioning skills
(Graesser & Olde, 2003). For example, a qualitative study with the 9th graders in the science
class conducted by Coutinho and Almeida (2014) revealed that the use of various question-
promoting strategies caused a decrease in the number of closed questions whereas the number of
open questions increased. Personality and cognitive ability tests conducted by Graesser and Olde
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 13
(2003) revealed that although good comprehenders asked fewer questions, they have asked high
quality good questions. Also, while testing their predictions of a cognitive model of question
asking, these researchers realized that students ask better questions when they are faced with ill-
structured and anomalous conditions, which they have called a “cognitive disequilibrium.” As
they indicated in their paper (Graesser & Olde, 2003, p.524): “Questions are asked when
individuals are confronted with obstacles to goals, anomalous events, contradictions,
discrepancies, salient contrasts, obvious gaps in knowledge, expectation violations and decisions
that require discriminate among equally attractive alternatives. The answers to such questions
are expected to restore equilibrium and homeostasis.”
King’s (1995) model, of inquiry has demonstrated that providing students with thought-
provoking question stems can induce critical thinking processes in them. In her study, students
were asked to generate questions to which they did not already know the answers. The result of
the study showed that when the students are presented with the exemplar question stems and are
guided by the teacher, students can not only learn good questioning techniques, but also do it
speedily.
Various studies conducted in classrooms show that teachers use “closed” questions
whose answers are already known most of the time, in other words questions that have
right/wrong answers (Dillon, 1988; Rojas-Drummond, 2003). This type of discourse is not very
productive because it does not provide students with opportunities to elaborate and come up with
long explanations. In contrast, when the teacher is posing higher-level questions, s/he may also
model a useful questioning technique that students can assimilate and use in their student-led
group discussions (Chin, 2007). For example, debating activities in the classroom could provide
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 14
teachers with excellent opportunities to expose their students to the questions and topics that are
controversial and do not have a “right” answer to them (Bull, 2007 & Lilly, 2012).
Several educational researchers have critiqued the IRE (Initiation, Response and
Evaluation) questioning model and have revealed its prevalence in various classrooms regardless
of the subject and grade level (Vaish, 2008). Lee (2007) did not look at the limitations of the
IRE model but rather focused on the model’s usefulness for understanding classroom interaction.
Lee’s fine grained analysis were conveyed toward the third turn position in teacher talk which
provided the teacher with the opportunities to correct students’ misconceptions and errors,
helped students to reconstruct questions and teachers to evaluate students’ response. Moreover,
he recognized that the third turn, the evaluation/feedback part, may provide educators with
analytical possibilities for understanding students’ identities, also their knowledge and skills.
Teacher talk should be corrective and nuanced so it does not overwhelm student to
student interactions. Indeed, as Burns & Myhill (2004) found, “The more questions teachers ask,
the fewer children say.” Even though it is generally beneficial to have less teacher talk and more
student to student interactions in the classrooms, teacher talk plays an important role in helping
students learn. For example, the research conducted by Gillies (2004) indicated that when
teachers were trained to use specific communication skills, they were able to engage in more
mediated-learning interactions, asked more questions and had fewer discipline problems in
contrast to their peer teachers who did not get the training. Moreover, these teachers’ behavior
served as great models for their students who in their turn provided detailed explanations and
asked more questions. This study’s finding about the benefits of teachers asking many questions
(due to their special training) seems to contradict Burns & Myhill (2004, p. 47) research.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 15
Additional research is needed in variety of subject areas in order to determine if there is any
negative correlation between the excessive teacher questioning and student learning.
Collaborative Learning
Some researchers use cooperative and collaborative learning terms interchangeably.
Smith et al. (2005) highlighted that both pedagogies influence peer interaction. However, they
draw clear distinction between them by stating that “cooperative learning requires carefully
structured individual accountability, while collaborative does not” (p.2).
If learners are exposed to the student dominated discourse and are trained to ask higher
level thinking questions, then students may pose questions to each other and answer these
questions, supporting their points of view by providing strong evidence. By placing students in
small cooperative groups, teachers can teach special techniques that can not only help students to
formulate their own questions, but probably provide every student in a group with a chance to
participate and express his/her own voice.
Student interactions that promote better outcomes in collaborative settings were carefully
examined. It was established that elaborated discussions lead to better learning outcomes. Asking
questions during group collaboration was positively related to achievement provided it led to
receiving explanation instead of just receiving the fight answer (Webb, 1982). In fact, receiving
explanation and, subsequently, carrying out constructive activity was found to be significantly
beneficial than just receiving the right answer. On the other hand, not receiving help after
making errors and asking questions could negatively impact student achievement.
The research conducted by Mercer et al. (2004) found a correlation between improved
reasoning and language skills which led to ‘higher level of attainment in their study of science’
(p.373). In addition, they acknowledged the fact that language skills can be taught and learned.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 16
In their qualitative and quantitative study with elementary school children, Mercer & Wegerif
(1999) found that students, who are explicitly taught the language for reasoning while carrying
out collaborative activities, were better in problem solving than the students who were not
exposed to the “ground rules.” Providing students with the “ground rules” opens up several
avenues for students in addition to increasing their collaborative reasoning. For example,
classroom teachers and researchers indicate that those “ground rules” create an intellectual
environment, make the class atmosphere more receptive, and allow students to encourage each
other. Moreover, these “ground rules” create a neutralizing environment where confident
students have an opportunity for being open to varied and diverse views, whereas the quieter
students feel the freedom of contributing to the group, by acknowledging that their opinions are
appreciated and are taken under consideration (Mercer, 2004). Mercer’s study used the TRAC
(Talk, Reasoning and Computers) project which was mostly made up of collaborative activities.
The Raven Progressive Matrices test scores, measuring the effects of the project on students’
reasoning ability, were analyzed before and after the introduction of the program. The study
found a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores. Mercer and Wegerif
(1999) described the exploratory talk in the following way: “Exploratory talk is that in which
partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas. Statements and suggestions
are sought and offered for joint consideration. In exploratory talk, knowledge is made publicly
accountable and reasoning is visible in the talk” (p. 97). If students are trained in posing and
answering higher-level questions, then they can also be easily engaged in exploratory talk.
King’s (1991) study with elementary school students showed that students in groups with
guided questioning outperformed students in unguided (this group was told to ask and answer
questions) and in control (this one received no instructions about the questioning) groups.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 17
According to this study, the usage of strategic questioning increases students’ problem-solving
skills by teaching them how to ask for and provide elaborated explanations during the problem-
solving process. This improvement of problem-solving skills leads to better student learning.
Whenever students are exposed to guided questioning techniques and they consciously use them
in their peer or group discourse, the discussions become more interesting and productive because
those high-level questions spawn intricate, thoughtful responses and explanations. King’s (1990,
1991) findings align perfectly with those of Webb (1989) well known research on interactions in
groups that demonstrated that the students who give explanations to others in the group learn the
most. Deering and Meloth (1993) examined Webb’s (1989) study on group interaction and
learning, and found out that those students who provide high-level elaborations learn
significantly more than their help recipient peers. Without teacher guidance, the collaborative
learning occurring in “natural” settings leads to the low frequency of high-level talk (Meloth &
Deering, 1993). However, the research shows that students can increase the frequency of their
high-level talk, for example, effective argumentative discussions, during their collaborative
group activities.
A scenario when students increase the frequency of their high-level talk was evident in
the study done by Anderson et al. (2001) with elementary school children. Anderson et al. (2001)
concluded that the effective argumentative stratagems after being picked up by a child can be
employed and spread by other children. They dubbed this phenomenon as the snowball
hypothesis. These researchers speculate that students who employ argument stratagem do not
undergo the process of mimicry and, therefore, should not be considered copycats. What is more,
students utilizing this stratagem probably have a good understanding of it as a useful tool and
know when and how to use it. Anderson et al. (2001) found two more interesting factors in their
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 18
study. First of all, they observed that the snowball phenomenon worked best in student centered
rather than teacher centered discussions. Second, they noticed that after gaining and
understanding the stratagem of argumentation, students may use it again and again. Anderson et
al. (2001) study’s results support King’s (1991) findings where she found that the guided
questioners were able to transfer their acquired skills about the strategic questioning to the novel
problem. She also noticed that students demonstrated transfer while internalizing their new
acquired questioning strategies from dyadic to individual context. Similar research results were
obtained by Mercer et al. (2004) when the impact of intervention was checked after one year.
The evaluation of its long term effects showed that students who received the intervention were
still able to recall the ground rules and use them in their problem-solving activities. In contrast to
above-mentioned studies, the research conducted by Gillies and Khan (2008) found opposite
results. Their research indicated that there was no evidence of transferring oral discourse skills
learned in RP-S (reasoning and problem solving) activity to the written task. Students need some
time, repetitive instructions in order to process their newly acquired techniques, such as being
able to provide meaningful justifications, elaborations and reasoning to the novel phenomenon.
Collaborative reasoning (CR) is an instructional approach that uses dialogical inquiry for
small group discussions (Waggoner et al., 1995). When students are engaged in collaborative
reasoning, they learn in better ways since they think collectively in contrast to thinking
individually. The proponents of collaborative reasoning (CR) believe that effective dialog
discussions help participants to develop better individual argumentation skills because they
provide a developmental environment where students can experiment with a range of
argumentation elements like reason, ground, warrant, and rebuttal. However, students should be
explicitly taught special techniques that would help them to engage in argumentation whereas
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 19
teachers should facilitate and scaffold small group discussions (Gillies & Khan, 2008).
Accordingly, CR emphasizes the role of a dialog for teaching students how to think. Reznitskaya
at el. (2009) reviewed numerous CR studies that were focused on (1) discourse patterns during
CR discussions; (2) post-participation individual student outcomes; (3) the relationships between
the discussions’ quality and students’ consequent performance. These studies clearly showed that
the engagement in a collaborative reasoning dialogs helped students in developing and enhancing
their argument schemas.
In Lilly’s (2012) study with college students taking an Environmental Science course,
students were given one week for their debate preparation and were also told not to focus on
winning or losing situations but rather were instructed to collaboratively work on their dispute’s
rationalization. When students’ debate positions were evaluated before and after debate, it turned
out that an assigned debate position influenced student’s opinion toward that position.
Construction of strong argument mostly occurs when students are engaged in open-ended, real-
world problems that have no right or wrong answers. This study raises a question: do students
make better reasoning during the debate when they are assigned to a particular position or when
they are given opportunities to choose a position for themselves? Depending on the answer, the
teachers may need to plan the classroom debate accordingly in order to avoid any kind of bias,
which may be the result of assigned debate positions.
Teachers play a major role in student learning in collaborative groups (Webb, 2009).
They can employ various strategies for enhancing task performance and student achievement.
For example, teachers may train their students in high-level discourse by providing explanation
prompts. These prompts may include a variety of questioning methods such as metacognitive,
strategic, comprehension and connection questions. When students are engaged in higher level
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 20
cognitive tasks or in complex tasks like solving ill-structured problems, they often become aware
of their own thinking (King, 2003). Additionally, while employing Guided Reciprocal Peer
Questioning, students are encouraged to ask metacognitive questions which help students
monitor and reflect upon their own thinking, problem solving and decision-making processes.
Likewise, this approach helps students to clarify and correct their peers and their own
misconceptions, fix any occurring errors and check their understanding. In reciprocal
questioning, students are trained in such a way that peers exchange high-level thinking questions.
If learners are engaged in a student-centered discussion, it does not mean that the teacher plays
an observer’s role. Students need guidance for questioning strategies, which will help them to
become effective problem solvers. As King (1991) states, students may not be able to solve
problems effectively if they are not explicitly trained to ask strategic questions. In other words,
students need trainers or facilitators. Students are also required to monitor each other’s thinking.
Reciprocal questioning or guided cooperative questioning developed by King and Rosenshine
(1993) was developed to engage students in an elaborative questioning paradigm that leads to
knowledge construction. In reciprocal questioning, students are encouraged to ask each other
high-level questions about the topic. It is believed that this type of questioning can help students
monitor their own and each other’s comprehension of the material. In addition, high-level
questioning encourages students to explain and elucidate their thinking. Teachers’ appropriate
contribution to the collaborative groups may lead to productive outcomes by generating high
quality student discourse (Meloth & Deering, 1993). Certain characteristics of instruction can
promote high-level discourse. For example, teachers may model their own thinking and
demonstrate strategies such as clarification, inference, question generation and summarization.
Eventually, they can encourage the students to elaborate, justify, and explain their claims in
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 21
order to support their conclusions. Teachers also can help students to make connections between
the process (communication) and product (what was learned). Teachers, by employing certain
guided questioning techniques or models such as King’s (1995) model of inquiry, may promote
their students’ critical thinking. The reinforcement of these strategies can help students develop a
habit of inquiry. The development of this habit can be simulated by posing questions modeled
after certain questioning stems. For example, asking questions such as Why do you think so? Or
What makes you think in that way? This questioning technique may be applied to subject areas
and contents other than science.
Various research findings (King, 1991; Webb, 1982; Webb, 2009) show that teacher
guidance including modeling and scaffolding was necessary for the productive cooperative group
interaction. Furthermore, evidence existed that students had rare opportunities for learning
specific strategies in order to communicate effectively in their cooperative groups (as cited in
Mercer, 1995). Some studies revealed that teachers very often encouraged students to talk and
make decisions or reminded them to discuss the proposed topic in the group without
guiding/teaching them how specifically to use language. The teacher guidance is necessary in
every classroom, may be even more in science classrooms. Not offering guidance in science
classrooms may lead to an ineffective learning in cooperative groups. Indeed, while conducting
scientific investigations in science classrooms, students must describe their observations, ask
questions, gather information, formulate and revise hypothesis, make inferences, analyze their
collected data, and come up with conclusions and claims that need to be supported by the valid
evidence. Those are not trivial, routine activities. In order to perform them effectively, some
level of guidance is essential.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 22
Teachers should make sure their students have a clear understanding of the cooperative
learning norms. For example, students should know that sitting at the same table and having one
student accomplish the task while the rest of the group members just add their names to the
assignment does not mean that they work cooperatively. Cooperative learning is not merely
sitting next to each other. It is about tackling, discussing and solving the proposed task together
as a group. Because cooperative learning encourages students to learn more and promotes higher
achievement in contrast to individual learning, it makes sense for teachers to let their students
know about the correct structure and positive outcomes of cooperative learning (Smith et al.,
2005).
Tracking, socioeconomic status and urban education
The results of the study conducted by Radenbush et al. (1993) showed that there was not
enough focus on high level critical activities in low-track math and science classes. Other
researchers obtained similar results (Torff, 2006; Zohar & Dori, 2003; Zohar & Vaaknin, 2001).
They found out that teachers differentiated their instructions according to their beliefs that higher
order thinking was appropriate only for high-achievers. As a result, low-achieving students were
continually exposed to lower order instruction which led to a widening gap between low- and
high-achieving students. The study that was done with Israeli teachers showed that 45% of
teachers believed that higher order thinking activities were not appropriate for low achieving
students. In order to validate that students in all academic levels should be a target of teaching
higher order level thinking skills, a group of researchers (Zohar & Dori, 2003) designed an
experiment to teach higher order thinking skills in science classrooms. According to their
research results, “The compelling empirical evidence shows that low-achieving students and
higher order thinking are not mutually exclusive” (p. 177). Therefore, this study showed that low
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 23
achieving students can benefit when exposed to activities that require higher order thinking
skills.
Anyon suggested that student work in working-class classrooms is very different from
student work in middle-class or affluent classrooms (Anyon, 1980). In working-class schools
science education tends to be simplistic and mechanical. Quite often teachers retell students the
same material that the textbook says. Students spend significant time just copying the teacher’s
sentences from the board. The experiments are scarce and lack analytical examination. The study
also indicated the shortage of good explanations and the prevalence of primitive discourse in
these classrooms. Rubin’s study also showed the insufficiencies of discourse and interactions in
poor, urban schools (Rubin, 2007). According to this study, these deficiencies created a learning
environment where only few students can succeed. Most of the students were destined to fail in
this environment. Therefore, it is necessary to switch to discourses and interactions that can
promote competence rather than incompetence. Regrettably, despite strong indications that
student discourse and interactions in urban or socioeconomically diverse schools are woefully
inadequate, there has not been sufficient research done examining and analyzing the quality of
questioning during student discourse in urban/ socioeconomically diverse high school
classrooms.
Method
This research study provides a better understanding of discourse patterns during
collaborative group discussions involving high school students from an East Coast
socioeconomically diverse school district. Specifically, the study focused on the following
research areas: a) the types of discourse used during collaborative group discussions in a
socioeconomically diverse high school, b) students’ use of high-level questioning during
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 24
collaborative group discussions. This research piloted a new approach in teaching students how
to ask and answer higher order thinking questions which in turn should improve students’ critical
thinking skills.
Although the proposed strategies and models in this article can be used in any subject
area and grade level, this particular study focused on high school science. The Project 2061
defines and emphasizes the importance of increasing scientific literacy (AAAS, 1993). Just
having scientific knowledge is not enough; we want our students to be fluent in scientific talk,
such as in scientific argumentation and scientific explanation, where posing and answering
thought provoking questions might be a key avenue for successful science learning. Lemke
(1990) highlighted the idea that science education should provide students with opportunities to
become “fluent speakers of science” (as cited in Mercer et al, 2004). In the same spirit, Zint &
Peyton (2001) suggested incorporating 10 risk education goals into students’ learning in order to
prepare them as future decision makers about health and environmental risks. These goals aimed
at improving students’ evaluating skills in regard to differing perceptions of risks, the benefits
and limitations of the scientific approaches used to estimate the type and size of the risk, and the
effect of personal biases on their and others judgment about the size of the risk. In order to
achieve these goals, students needed to engage in the high cognitive tasks requiring deep
understanding of the content. Earlier, an environmental educator Riechard (1985) has stated that
people, who are literate in environmental risk education, have great inquiry skills and are critical
thinkers and questioners; they are people who excel in analyzing the best information available
in order to arrive to sound solutions.
Setting and participants
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 25
The school is located in a city in Northeastern New Jersey. According to 2010 census
data, in this borough about 55.01% are White, 18.85 % are Black, 0.29% are Native Americans,
5.81% are Asian and 0.05% are Pacific Islander. Hispanic or Latino of any race was 44.21%. In
the district about 50-60% of students are qualified for free/ reduced lunch. The student
demographics are approximately 50% Hispanic, 20% Black, 20% White and 10% other.
Participants of the study were high school freshman students (N=14) enrolled in Mrs.
Patty’s Environmental Science course in Anderson High School. The research took four
consecutive days. For the experimental study purposes the experimental groups were placed in
different classroom, while their classmates were in their usual environmental science classrooms
with Ms. Patty. Only students who had signed parental consent forms have participated in the
study.
Data sources
Data of this study came from the audio and video recordings, classroom observations,
field notes, and student artifacts. The audio and video recordings were transcribed and analyzed
by the software Dedoose to get more accurate mixed data analysis. Additionally, both student
artifacts and researcher’s observations and field notes were used to clarify and resolve any
inconsistencies, gaps or ambiguities in transcriptions caused by suboptimal recording quality.
The topic used during this research was the green energy sources. Although four groups were
participating in the pilot study and each group was discussing a one kind of renewable energy
source, only one group, the Biomass group was chosen by the researcher for data analysis.
Research design
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 26
The study was about observing students’ discussion patterns, teaching them how to
construct high order thinking questions and observing/analyzing student generated questions in
the context of renewable energy sources. The chosen topic was suitable for a study for a variety
of reasons. First of all, it is a popular topic nowadays for our society and there are various
differing clean energy ideas and suggestions about carbon free energy sources. Second, the broad
topic of Renewable Energy Sources provided the researcher with the opportunities to divide the
main topic into the subtopics, where each group would focus on one type of sustainable energy
resources. Last but not least, since Ms. Patty had not covered the Renewable Energy Source
chapter before this research’s start, the students did not have to repeat it and fall behind on other
topics because of this study.
The objectives of Day 1 can be divided into three parts: a) researcher introducing herself
and presenting the goals of the study, b) checking students’ prior knowledge and short lecture
about the renewable vs. nonrenewable energy sources and c) small group discussion about the
advantages of renewable energy source.
Because of scheduling conflicts and difficulties with availability of free classrooms, the
researcher had the entire class (including non-participant students) in the same science room.
However, recording devices were directed only towards the participants with signed consent
forms approved by the IRB and data was collected only from those students. Study participants
from both control and experimental groups participated in Day 1 study. These students were
broken into four collaborative groups: two groups were seated in the front of the classroom
whereas the other two were in the back of the classroom. Both front groups had three students
each whereas the back groups had four students per group.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 27
The researcher’s introduction of herself and presentation of the goals of the study was
followed by checking students’ prior knowledge and a short lecture about the nonrenewable
energy sources (fossil fuels and nuclear energy). Since students were previously taught
nonrenewable energy sources, they already had background knowledge about it. Researcher’s
lecture gradually shifted toward the nonrenewable energy sources, which was the main topic for
study. She talked briefly about each of the renewable energy sources yet being careful for not
providing too much information.
According to the designed research protocol, each group was expected to work on one
kind of renewable energy source. Four renewable energy sources were arbitrarily assigned to
each collaborative group. The researcher had the names of the renewable energy sources written
on index cards and randomly placed the index cards on the desks. Although each group’s topic
was assigned by the researcher, the group facilitators were chosen by their teacher, Mrs. Patty,
since she was the one who was familiar with her students’ academic levels and their study skills.
The facilitators were chosen based on distinguished note taking and leadership skills. Every
facilitator was given a handout, where they were asked to jot down their group members’
discussions. The handout had three columns: initials, short description and details (See Appendix
A for a sample handout).
In order to optimize student motivation and facilitate discussion, every group member
including the facilitator in each group received a handout called “Renewable Energy: Panacea or
Pipe Dream?” The front of the handout had information about the goal of the discussion. For
example, there was mentioned that the goal of the discussion was to develop a compelling
justification for the increase of the production and use of renewable energy. The handout also
included recommendations for their discussion. For example, the students were asked to develop
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 28
alternative viewpoints on the subject such as letting the market forces and/or technology decide
renewable energy’s future instead of taking an activist position. Furthermore, students were
given written directions about utilizing any fact or argument that they have obtained from their
previous lessons and other sources like magazines, Internet or TV. The back of the handout had a
list of some suggested discussion items. Students have advised to read them and use as guidance.
The suggested items were divided into three main topics: a) the need of renewable energy, b)
renewable energy in developed and developing worlds and c) energy and politics. Each topic in
its turn was divided into subtopics. This table summarizes the information provided on the back
of the handout:
Students were asked to utilize their textbooks (Environmental Science by Karen Arms,
published by Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, 2008) for group discussion. Some suggested items in
the handout were not addressed in the textbook. Students were expected to use their prior
knowledge they have gained while watching TV, reading a newspaper or magazine article or
The need of renewable
energy
Renewable energy in
developed and developing
worlds
Energy and politics
Environmental reasons More affordable in
developed than in poor
countries
Politics of renewable
energy in United States
Economic reasons Environmental pollution in
developing worlds
Fossil fuels and geopolitical
considerations
National security reasons The need of transition to
renewable energy in
developing world
Kyoto protocol and the
future of climate treaty
Moral reasons Developing and sharing
green technologies
Carbon tax versus cap and
trade
Green energy and jobs Financial aspects of the
move to renewable energies
Green energy and
innovation
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 29
reading pertinent information in Internet. All the above mentioned was also written in the
provided handout.
The objectives of Day 2 were to introduce students to high order thinking questioning
techniques and help them to recognize and evaluate the differences between low and high level
questioning. In addition, students were asked to practice making high level thinking questions in
the context of renewable energy sources by using question stems that were adapted from Alison
King (See Appendix A for the sample). For that purpose the researcher met only with the
experimental group. These students (N=8) were randomly chosen by Mrs. Patty. They went to
their regular classes, got marked “present” for their attendance, and then came to the classroom
where the experimental instruction took place.
At the beginning of the lesson the researcher posed the following questions: “What is
considered good questioning?”, “Do you think there is a correlation between good questioning
and good answering? Justify your answer.”, “Can you come up with low level (bad) questions?”,
“Can you come up with high level (good) questions?”
After getting some responses from the students, the researcher explained that according
to much research, high level thinking questioning promotes critical thinking skills, develops
deeper understanding, better thinking and learning. She also highlighted that, according to the
research based evidence, low level questioning relies on prior knowledge, memorization, and
right/wrong answers. This type of questioning limits interpretation, depends on already known
answers and, eventually, promotes low level learning. After the short introduction of questioning
techniques, the researcher posed several questions and had students to analyze the types of
questions and answer them as well. The posed questions were progressing from the most simple
(low level) to complex and difficult (high level) questioning. For example, the simplest question
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 30
which checked students’ knowledge was “How many renewable energy sources are there?” Here
are some examples of posed high level thinking questions: a) What are some problems associated
with using hydroelectric energy? (Analysis) b) How could you design a house which would
mostly rely on renewable energy sources? (Synthesis) c) Can you develop a proposal to the
mayor of your town in which you would suggest the immediate action of using renewable energy
sources? (Synthesis) d) What evidence would you use to show the possibility of transferring
wind energy from rural to urban areas? (Evaluation)
The main idea of this activity was to have students realize the differences between low
level and high level thinking questions and the kind of explanations that followed from those
questions. After a short lecture, each student was given a question starter adapted by Alison King
and was asked to generate questions on the topic of renewable energy sources by utilizing the
provided question starters. Students were asked to work in groups in order to formulate and
answer their own questions.
The objective of Day 3 was to have students work in collaborative groups and make high
level thinking questions, by utilizing the question starters (Day 2’s handout) and the suggested
items’ list (Day1’s handout). Only the experimental group participated in Day 3 study. The
experimental group participants (N=8) were divided into two groups: four students in each
group. Like in Day 2, there were no facilitators assigned in Day 3. Moreover, the researcher
announced that each group member was expected to contribute to the group work because the
previous day’s study showed that most of the groups were dominated by one student. In addition
to the handouts that were used in Day 1 and Day2, every student received the third handout
called “Statement/ Opinion Day3” ( See Appendix A for the Statement/ Opinion Day 3 handout).
The students were engaged in a whole class discussion of sample questions which were high
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 31
level thinking questions based on renewable energy sources. The purpose of this procedure was
to show students how the construction of the high level questioning leads to a productive
explanation. The students were encouraged to re-read the handout about the good questioning
and answering, which was meant to serve as a model for their Day 3 activity.
The objective of Day 4 was to discuss the disadvantages of using renewable energy
sources and, like in Day 1, both control and experimental groups were present in the study. For
Day 4, all students got suggested items’ list, similar to Day 1. The difference was that students
were asked to focus on disadvantages rather than on advantages of renewable energy sources
(Check Appendix A for a sample handout). Every group had a facilitator, just like in Day 1, and
there were no question starters provided to any group.
Data analysis
Critical thinking has ancient roots that date back to the Hellenistic era. There is historical
evidence based on Aristotle’s and Plato’s manuscripts that Socrates (470-399 B.C.) challenged
his students with good questioning which promoted critical thinking. Considered one of the
founders of Western thinking, Socrates was believed to make his students evaluate their beliefs
and to encourage his students to formulate their own hypothesis. In one of Plato’s manuscripts,
there is a segment about Socrates teaching complex geographical principles to a slave boy. After
the boy learned about this complex concepts, Socrates gave credit not to his direct teaching but
rather to asking the right questions (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). Socrates’ probing questioning
techniques started to get widespread, especially in educational institutions. Various educational
researchers have acknowledged the importance of questioning strategy in education. A classical
research study revealed that teachers spent 80% of the school day on asking questions, and they
asked about 300-400 questions per day (Leven & Long, 1981). Numerous research studies stated
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 32
that most of the questions asked in the classrooms did not have high quality (Graesser & Person,
1994, Seymour & Osana, 2003, Walsh & Stattes, 2005) unless teachers were trained in effective
questioning such as inquiry-based teacher questioning (Oliveira, 2010).
The research interest of this pilot study was not about teachers’ but rather students’
questioning and discussion techniques. Particularly, the focus was on higher cognitive level
discourse, which would help students to construct their own knowledge/information and solve
problems that are related to the real world. The Nobel laureate in physics Isidor Rabi contributed
his great questioning skills to his mom, who asked him everyday about the good questions that
Isidor asked at school (King, 1995).
Since the teacher is the primary questioner in the classroom, it was interesting to observe
students playing an active role in the classroom, asking questions to their peers rather than being
questioned by their teacher. Research also showed that students did not ask questions
spontaneously, however with their teacher’s help and guidance students can generate meaningful
questions (Chin & Osborne, 2008). Moreover, when teachers stimulate their students to generate
higher level thinking questions, it could help students monitoring their own thinking and
expressing their voice. Teachers can create such an environment where students’ generated
questions may spawn another set of questions. Critical thinking will be initiated when instead of
asking questions that have dead-end answers, questions leading to another set of questions are
practiced among the students (Toledo, 2006). The study done with the MBA students taking an
online course revealed that more controversial point of views supported students’ critical
thinking (Jeong, 2003). Interestingly, their sequential analysis which studied student interaction
in the online discussion threads aligned well with this pilot study. Although the current study was
conducted with much younger students, there were several fragments observed when more
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 33
contradicting ideas lead to more discussion, where students were thinking critically while
supporting their argument.
Walsh and Stattes (2005) found that teachers’ questioning quality has not been changed
in the past 100 years. It therefore becomes evident that there was more focus on the quantity,
rather than on the quality of the questions. Isn’t it better to ask fewer questions but questions that
have high quality, questions that stimulate student thinking, and questions that promote deep
learning vs. surface learning? Anyway, how is the quality of questions determined?
American educational psychologist Benjamin Bloom has made a significant contribution
to this field with the formation of what became known as Blooms taxonomy (Bloom, Engelhart,
Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). Bloom and his colleagues classified three different learning
domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. Bloom’s taxonomy of educational outcomes for
knowledge-based goals has six different expertise levels. In this multitier framework, each tier
expresses the measurable outcome of student learning where a learner can achieve that particular
knowledge. Constructing questions based on Bloom’s framework can be classified into two main
categories: lower level and higher level questioning. Lower level thinking questions require
knowledge, comprehension, and application whereas higher level thinking questions require
analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Various primary, secondary and high educational
establishments have incorporated Bloom’s taxonomy in their instruction and assessment.
Bloom’s taxonomy was considered as a great model of learning objectives. It was around the
mid-nineties, when Bloom’s former graduate student, Lorin Anderson and his colleagues,
decided to revise Bloom’s taxonomy, in order to adjust new skills that 21st century students need
to master. The new revised Bloom’s taxonomy was not very different from the original model.
There were two minor differences: 1) the nouns were replaced with verbs and 2) Synthesis,
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 34
which was the second highest questioning level in Bloom’s original cognitive domain, was
renamed “creating” and was placed to the highest tier in Bloom’s taxonomy. The “evaluation”
category which was the highest rank in the old domain was replaced with the verb “evaluate” and
was moved one tier down and was considered as a second highest level questioning in the new,
revised model. The new updated domain consisted of the following thinking levels:
remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating. The major difference
between Bloom’s original and the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (RBT) is that the original
taxonomy has single dimension whereas the revised taxonomy has dual dimensions: learning and
cognition (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002). Furthermore, Mayer (2002) argues
that the revised taxonomy’s lower cognitive level is remembering, which requires a retention of
knowledge whereas the rest of the tiers serve more complex function. The rest of the five
cognitive processes, understanding, applying, analyzing evaluating and creating, can promote
learners to use their new acquired knowledge in different domains or situations, which initiates
the cognitive process for transfer. As Mayer (2002) has stated “retention focuses on the past;
transfer emphasizes the future.” (p. 226)
For question analysis and coding purposes “Questions to provoke critical thinking” table
was used, which was created by the Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning of
Brown University. The Sheridan Center has used the thinking skills and example question stems
based on Alison King’s (1995) “Inquiry Minds Really want to Know: Using Questioning to
Teach Critical Thinking.” All questions from transcripts were identified and coded as procedural,
clarifying, lower and higher level. Additionally, lower level questions were coded as
Understanding or Remembering whereas higher level questions were categorized as Applying,
Analyzing, Evaluating and Creating. It is worth to note that this kind of question categorization
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 35
was slightly different from the Bloom’s original taxonomy. In our analysis “applying” thinking
skills was classified as a higher order thinking skill in contrast to Bloom’s original taxonomy
where it is considered as a lower level cognitive skills. Dedoose software was used for coding
students’ questions and analyzing the study’s data.
Results
The group discussions were proceeding in an amicable and respectful environment.
Students showed an open minded sociocognitive behavior. Repetitive observations of the
Biomass group revealed absence of any emotional discomfort. Also, students mostly relied on
their prior knowledge and short class discussions rather than on the information from their
textbook. As revealed by the transcript (Day 3 - Fragment 3, Day 4 – Fragment 3), students had
some obvious misconceptions. One area of misconception was the role and location of ozone
layer. Another topic of difficulty was the connection between the national security and renewable
energies. Even though these misconceptions prevented students from developing their topics in
depth, they did not render the discussions useless for the purposes of this study: the use of
questions to simulate a thought-provoking discourse was evident in those fragments.
There was a noticeable difference between observed questioning patterns pre-treatment
(Day 1) and post-treatment (Day 4). First, Day 1’s discussions were dominated by the facilitator
with low participation by other students whereas during Day 4 almost all students were engaged
and motivated. Even though it was apparent that the facilitator had excellent leadership skills and
continued to be an energetic participant, other group members were actively engaged in the
verbal discourse while carrying a high level talk. Second, the transcripts showed that during Day
1 almost all discussions followed the pattern in which the facilitator would engage other students
one after another but there was almost no interaction between other students. To summarize, the
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 36
discussions pre-treatment mostly followed this pattern: F (facilitator) – S1 (student 1), F-S2, F-
S1, F-S3, etc. With more engagement and participation, the discourse switched to more
interesting patterns like F – S1 – S2 – S1, F – S3 –S1, etc. Third, dynamics of group discourse
during Day 4 showed productive patterns of questioning involving making claims, counter-
arguments and using rebuttals. This in turn promoted students’ critical thinking. Furthermore,
there were several fragments observed when group members posed explanatory questions to each
other in order to explore the group members’ initial superficial response. These kind of
questioning techniques have encouraged students to be engaged in discussion which lead to more
productive student talk (Day 4-Fragment 1).
It appears that after teaching practices promoting higher level thinking questioning were
applied during days 2 and 3 practices, there was a positive transformation in the Biomass group.
It was also evident from the repeated observations and transcripts of recordings that the Biomass
group was working more collaboratively and cooperatively in Day 4, compared with prior days.
Interestingly, this transformation happened gradually as the study progressed. In Day 3
students were able to self-organize by assigning a leader and dividing the job among the group
members (Day 3 – Fragment 1). Day 3 seemed to be pivotal in making discussions more
interactive and engaging. All students except one were actively engaged and were generating
ideas and questions as revealed by these discussion excerpts: Day 3 – Fragments 2 & 3. It is
possible that this phenomenon was triggered by several factors: a) Using thought-provoking
higher level questions helped to make the discussion more interesting and engaging, b) The
students got used to collaborative learning and started to feel more comfortable around each
other, c) The researcher’s proposal that each group member needed to contribute to the group
work may have positively influenced this, d) The group was better structured with each group
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 37
member knowing the subtopic that they would use for generating questions. Another important
factor was the effectiveness of questions stems in helping students generate higher-level thinking
questions. Most questions generated with the help of the question starters were sense-making
questions. The students had no problem in taking the question stems, making questions based on
the assigned topic and creating sense-making questions. These questions, along with their
provided explanations, are listed in Day 2 – Fragment 1.
What was the nature of questions raised during the discussions? The analysis of the
groups’ discourse revealed four types of questions being utilized by the group members (based
on the Bloom’s taxonomy). The questions were classified into the following categories:
procedural, clarifying, lower and higher level. Lower and higher level questions in their turn
were broken into subcategories. Lower level questioning was divided into 2 subcategories:
remembering and understanding, whereas higher level questioning was broken into four
subcategories: applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating. Interestingly, lots of questions were
clarifying questions. This observation was true for both pre-treatment and post-treatment
discussions. Probably, this result should not be surprising because the very nature of group
discussions compels students to ask for clarifications. Procedural questions were few so they
were ignored in this study.
The next category of questions of interest were lower and higher level questions. Higher
level questions were predominantly evaluating questions. How often and under what conditions
were higher level thinking questions utilized? There were total twenty lower and higher level
questions recorded in Day 1: thirteen of them (65%) were higher level thinking questions (see
Table 1). Out of seventy four questions recorded in Day 4, where forty of them were higher level
thinking questions and seven questions were qualified as lower level thinking questions (see
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 38
Table 3). The group members’ contribution to the group discussion revealed that 85% in contrast
to 65% of questions raised in Biomass group were higher levels, while only 35% of questions
were lower level questions. Although many questions were still raised by the facilitator, the rest
of the group members contributed significantly more to their group activity in Day 4 than they
did in Day 1 (see Tables 2 & 4).
How were higher level questions taken up by students’ peers? It is obvious from the
transcript that these questions spawned thoughtful responses and led to active discussion.
Additionally, they triggered alternate ideas/suggestions by other participants. Here are some
noticeable talk invitations and questioning techniques used by the students that made the
discussion more constructive and interesting: a) posing an open ended question as invitation to
group to a meaningful discussion (day 1, fragments 1&2), b) pressuring group members for more
elaborative explanations (day 1, fragment 3), c) making predictions by posing a question (day 1,
fragment 4), d) raising ethical, social and moral issues to compel students to come up with
alternative ideas (day 1, fragment 5), e) engaging non-talkative students into discourse by
bringing up pressing questions (day 4, fragment 1), f) forcing the student to elaborate by
questioned the accuracy of his statement (day 4, fragment 2), g) making claims, rebuttals and
counter-arguments to construct explanations and engage into thought-simulating discourse (day
4, fragment 3&4, h) generating explanations, including an evidence and reasoning, and scientific
predictions (day 4, fragment 5). In addition, when higher level thinking questions were used,
they usually led to better scientific explanation and more productive discussion. It allowed
students to explore their topic in more depth. For example, Day 1 - Fragment 6 indicated how
higher level thinking questioning promoted to better scientific explanation.
Summary
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 39
This study characterized the discourse patterns of socioeconomically diverse high school
students in Environmental Science classroom. It also examined the frequency of usage of higher
order thinking questions, their nature, situations where they are used and their impact on student
learning. Numerous previous studies showed positive impact of higher order thinking
questioning on problem solving tasks (King, 1991; King 1995; Zohar, Degani & Vaaknin, 2001).
Many science education researchers stress the importance of the development of higher order
cognitive skills where critical thinking and problem solving skills are intertwined with question
asking and decision-making (Zoller & Pushkin, 2007). However, these studies were
predominantly conducted on elementary and middle school students or with college students. In
addition, there was not enough research done on discourse patterns in socioeconomically diverse
high schools.
Some studies conducted on low achievers showed similar results in regard to the usage of
high level critical thinking activities. Their findings demonstrated that low track students were
not sufficiently exposed to higher cognitive level activities because of the beliefs of their
teachers (Zohar & Vaaknin, 2000, Torff, 2006, Zohar & Dori, 2003). These studies highlighted
the fact that low achiever students were not exposed to the instruction which required higher
cognitive skills. Nevertheless, there is not enough empirical evidence about the usage of higher
thinking questioning and activities in science settings in socioeconomically diverse or urban high
schools. This study provided with useful data about the discourse patterns and questioning
techniques in socioeconomically diverse high schools which, after proper analysis, may be
helpful for honing science instruction in urban or socioeconomically diverse high schools.
It should be noted that this study had some limitations. For example, the Biomass group’s
composition was not the same throughout the study. Although the group members stayed the
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 40
same during Days 2, 3 and 4, two students were not present in Day 1 study. Another limitation of
this study was the homogeneity of groups caused by making the group based on students’
preference. Would the discourse have a different pattern if the group was heterogeneous by
student gender? Would Taishae participate more rather than stay silent most of the time in Day
2? Lastly, there was a problem with the time allocation.
Suggestions for future study include conducting a study with much larger sample, making
heterogeneous groups and providing equal amount of time for the pre-test and post-test. The
research questions are not recommended to be changed or revised. The answers of these
questions would provide educational researchers with valuable insight regarding the discussion
patterns and the usage of higher-level thinking questioning in collaborative groups in
socioeconomically diverse high schools.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 41
References:
Almeida, P., & Neri de Souza, F. (2010) Questioning Profiles in Secondary Science Classrooms.
International Journal of Learning and Change, 4(3), 237-251.
Almeida, A. P. (2012) Can I ask a question? The importance of classroom questioning. Procedia
– Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 634-638.
Alexander, R.J. (2001) Culture and Pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education.
Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993) Project 2061:
Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, L. W., & Kratwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. White Plains, NY: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et
al. (2001) The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across
groups of children. Cognition and instruction, 19(1), 1-46.
Anyon, J. (1980) Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1),
67-93.
Bailin, S. (2002) Critical thinking and science. Journal of Science and Education, 11, 361-375.
Bell, S. (2010) Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.B., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956) Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (Handbook 1: Cognitive domain).
New York: Longmans Green.
Bull, M. J. (2007) Using structured academic controversy with nursing students. Nurse Educator,
32(5), 218-222.
Burns, C., & Myhill, D. (2004) Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of
interaction in whole class teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 35–49.
Bybee, W.R., & Fuchs, B. (2006) Preparing 21st Century Workforce: A New Reform in Science
and Technology Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349-352.
Chin, C. (2007) Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate
productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 42
Chin, C., & Osborne. J. (2008) Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and
learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44, 1-39.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case
studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Life Science, 19(2), 230-284.
Coutinho, J. M., & Almeida, A. P. (2014) Promoting student questioning in the learning of
Natural Sciences. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3781-3785.
Dennen, V. & Hoadley, C. (2013). Designing collaborative learning through computer support.
In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan, C., & O’Donnell A. International Handbook of
Collaborative Learning (pp. 389-403). New York: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Dillon, J.T. (1988) Questioning and teaching: A manual of practice. New York. Teachers
College Press.
Dori, J. Y., & Herscovitz, O. (1999) Questioning-Posing Capability as an Alternative Evaluation
Method: Analysis of an Environmental Case Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
36(4), 411-430.
Flammer, A. (1981) Towards a theory of question asking. Psychological Research, 43,
407-420.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004) School Engagement: Potential of the Concept,
State of the Evidence. Review of Educationa Research, 74, 59-109.
Gillies, M. R. (2004) The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal
behaviors during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257-
279.
Gillies, R. M., & Khan, A. (2008) Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and
learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 7-27.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago. Aldine.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994) Question asking during tutoring. American Educational
Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
Hofstein A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004) The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st
century, Science Education, 88, 28-54.
Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (1999) Implications of Vigotsky’s theory for peer learning. In
A.M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39-66).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 43
Hollweg, K. S., & Hill, D. (Eds.) (2003) What is the influence of the national science education
standards? Reviewing the evidence: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Jeong, C. A. (2003) The Sequential Analysis of Group Interaction and Critical Thinking in
Online. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25-43.
Johnson D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and
research. Edina, MN: interaction Book Company.
King, A. (1991) Effects of training in strategic questioning on children's problem-solving
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307-317.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as
strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–323.
King, A. (1995) Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the
curriculum. Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking.
Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 13-17.
King, A. (1999) Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King
(Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 87–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
King, A. (2002) Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote High-Level Cognitive Processing.
Theory into Practice, 41, 33-39.
Krathwohl, R.D. (2002) A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overvew. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Lee, Y. (2007) Third Turn position in teacher talk: Contigency and the work of teaching. Journal
of Pragmatics, 39, 1204-1230.
Leven, T., & Long, R. (1981) Effective instruction. Washington, DC: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Levy, F., & Murnane, J.R. (2005) The New Devision of Labor: How Computers Are Creating the
Next Job Market. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lilly, L. E. (2012) Assigned Positions for In-Class Influence Student Opinions. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(1), 1-5.
Mayer, E. R . (2002) Rote Versus Meaningful Learning, Theory into Practice, Revising Bloom’s
Taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 44
Meloth, M., & Deering, P. (1999) The role of the teacher in promoting cognitive processing
during collaborative learning. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on
peer learning (pp. 235–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999) Children's talk and the development of reasoning in
the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95-113.
Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004) Reasoning as a scientist: ways of helping
children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 367-385.
National Research Council. (1996) National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
O’Donnell, A. M. (2006) The role of peers and group learning. In P. Alexander & P. Winne
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Oliveria, W. A. (2010) Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions
through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-
453.
Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.Raudenbush, S. W.; Rowan, B.; & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals
in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research
Journal, 30, 523-555.
Resnick, L. (1987) Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., &
Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009) Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group
discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 29-48.
Riechard, D. E. (1985) Politics and scientific literacy. Education, 106(1), 108-111.
Rojas-Drummond, R. S., & Mercer, N. (2003) Scaffolding the development of effective
collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99 -111.
Rubin, B. (2007) Learner identity amid figured worlds: Constructing (In)competence at an Urban
High School. The Urban Review 38(2), 217-249.
Seymour, J. R., & H. P. Osana (2003) Reciprocal teaching procedures and principles: Two
teachers' developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(3), 325-44.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 45
Silva, E. (2009) Measuring Skills for 21st Century Learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630-
634.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48,
71-82.
Smith, A. K., Shepard, D. S., Johnson, W. D., & Johnson, T. R. (2005) Pedagogies of
Engagment: Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 1-15.
St. John, M., & Pratt, H. (1997) The factors that contribute to the ‘best cases’ of standardsbased
reform. School Science & Mathematics, 97, 316–324.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004) Supporting Autonomy
in the Classroom: Ways Teachers Encourage Student Decision Making and Ownership.
Educational Psychologist, 39, 97–110.
Tal, R. T., Dori, Y. J., Keiny, S., & Zoller, U. (2001) Assessing conceptual change of teachers
involved in STES education and curriculum development—The STEMS Project Approach.
International Journal of Science Education, 23, 247–261.
Tal, T., Krajcik, S. J., & Blumenfeld, C. P. (2006) Urban School’s teachers Enacting Project-
Based Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722-745.
Ten Dam G., & Volman M. (2004) Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching
strategies, Learning and Instruction, 14, 359-379.
Toledo, C. (2006) "Does your dog bite?" Creating good questions for online discussions.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 150-154.
Torff, B. (2006) Expert teachers’ beliefs about use of critical thinking activities with high and
low-advantage learners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 37-52.
Tweed R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002) Learning considered within a cultural context. American
Psychologist, 57(2), 89-99.
Vaish, V. (2008) Interacitonal Patterns in Singapore’s English Classrooms. Linguistics and
Education, 19(4), 366-377.
Waggoner, M., Chinn, C.A., Yi, H., & Anderson, R.C. (1995) Collaborative reasoning about
stories. Language Arts, 72, 582-589.
Walsh, J.A, & Sattes, B.D., (2005) Quality questioning: Research-based practice to engage every
learner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Webb, N. M. (1989) Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13, 21-40.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 46
Webb, N., M. (2009) The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom.
The British Psychological Society, 79, 1-28.
Webb, N. M., Farivar, S. H., Mastergeorge, A. M. (2002) Productive helping in cooperative
groups. Theory into Practice, 41, 13-20.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003) Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed
groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73-97.
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. (2006) Dialogue in the Classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
15(3), 379-428.
Wolfe, S. (2006) Teaching and learning through dialogue in primary classrooms in England.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. J. (2008) Argumentation and Dialogic Teaching: Alternative
Pedagogies for a Changing World. London: Futurelab.
Yerrik, K. R., & Gilbert, A. (2011) Constraining the discourse community: How science
discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. Journal of Multicultural
Discourses, 6(1), 67-91.
Zhang, J. (2013) Collaboraiton, technology, and culture. In Hmelo-Silver, C., Chinn, C., Chan,
C., & O’Donnell A. International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp. 495-508). New
York: Routledge.
Zint, M, & Peyton, R., B. (2001) Improving Risk Education in Grades 6–12: A Needs
Assessment of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin Science Teachers. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 32(2), 46-54.
Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin E. (2001) Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and
higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 469-485.
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. (2003) Higher Order Thinking Skills and Low-Achieving students: Are
they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181.
Zoller, U., & Puskin, P. (2007) Matching higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS) promotion goals
with problem-based laboratory practice in a freshman organic chemistry courses. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 153-171.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 47
APPENDIX A
Day 1
Handout #1 for group discussion
Discussion’s topic
Renewable Energy: Panacea or Pipe Dream?
During this group activity you will discuss the benefits and feasibility of the usage of renewable
energy (solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal, hydropower) instead of nonrenewable forms of energy
(fossil, nuclear). Each group will be focused on a specific type of renewable energy (your
group’s facilitator will tell you which one). The goal of this group discussion is to develop a
compelling justification for the increase of the production and use of renewable energy. You can
also develop alternative viewpoints on this subject like not taking any activist position on
renewable energy but letting instead market forces and/or technology to decide its future. When
discussing this subject, you can use any fact and argument you have learned about these sources
of energy during prior lessons. You can also use facts and arguments you have obtained from
other sources like newspaper or magazine articles, Internet, TV, etc. The following list of
discussion items will be beneficial during your discussion. Read it carefully before the discussion
and use it as guidance.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 48
Some suggested discussion items
1. The need of renewable energy
a. Environmental reasons
b. Economical reasons
c. National security reasons
d. Moral reasons
e. Green energy and jobs
f. Green energy and innovation
2. Renewable energy in developed and developing worlds
a. More affordable in developed than in poor countries
b. Environmental pollution in developing worlds
c. The need of transition to renewable energy in developing world
d. Developing and sharing green technologies
e. Financial aspects of the move to renewable energies
3. Energy and politics
a. Politics of renewable energy in the United States
b. Fossil fuels and geopolitical considerations
c. Kyoto protocol and the future of climate treaty
d. Carbon tax versus cap and trade
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 49
Day 1
Handout #1 for group discussion “Renewable Energy: Panacea or Pipe Dream?”
Discussion’s facilitator:
The type of renewable energy for discussion:
Group participants:
Participant (firstname lastname) Initials
Discussion Notes:
Initials Short Description Details
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 50
Day 4
Handout #2 for group discussion
Discussion’s topic
Renewable Energy: Costs or Disadvantages
During this group activity you will discuss the costs and disadvantages of the use of renewable
energy. Each group will discuss one of the following types of renewable energy: solar, wind,
biofuel, geothermal, hydropower. The group’s facilitator will tell you which one before the
discussion starts. During the course of this discussion you will need to come up with a list of
convincing arguments against the production and use of renewable energy. When doing this,
make sure you test your claims by comparing renewable and nonrenewable forms of energy
(fossil, nuclear). For example, if you are going to argue that renewable energy will have a heavy
cost on economy, make sure you compare it with costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. You
should use facts and arguments you have learned during prior lessons. Additionally, you can use
other sources of information: newspaper or magazine articles, Internet, TV, etc. The following
list of discussion items can help you navigate throughout your discussion. Read it carefully
before the discussion and use it as guidance.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 51
Some suggested discussion items
1. Costs of renewable energy
a. Impact on economy and jobs
b. Environmental costs of renewable energy
c. Ethanol production/subsidies and food prices
2. Renewable energy in developed world
a. Pricier energy and needy families
b. Carbon tax and its impact on economy
c. Cap and trade – is this better than carbon tax?
3. Renewable energy and developing world
a. The need of development and costs of renewable energy
b. Who will finance the move to renewables?
c. Poverty in developing world and renewable energy
d. Fairness question – why should developing countries put breaks on their
development than developed countries were polluting without any restrictions for
hundreds of years?
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 52
APPENDIX B
Day1 - Fragment 1
(6) Maria: We just write down notes?
(7) Chelsea: I do, you have to discuss, so start discussing.
Day1 - Fragment 2
(9) Chelsea: So, what is your opinion on biomass guys?
(12) Chelsea: Ok…I would really like this debate going.
Although Chelsea has mentioned this phrase, the transcripts of the recording did not show any
evidence of debate. However, by posing this open ended question, she was inviting her audience
for a meaningful discussion.
Day1 - Fragment 3
(15) Maria: I believe that biomass fuel is one of the best renewable sources and has some
downfalls in it.
(16) Chelsea: Like what?
(17) Maria: I am not sure, but I do believe.
(18) Chelsea: I actually agree with that statement, because renewable energy sources do have a
downfall. So, Jeremiah, what do you think about it?
(19) Jeremiah: It does something to do with renewable and nonrenewable fields. Am I right?
(20) Chelsea: So, Maria, would you use biomass?
(21) Maria: I am gonna say no on that.
(22) Chelsea: Why not?
(23) Maria: Because, I just read in the book saying that cutting down trees is one of the weak
sources of biomass that can cause the result of habitat loss, deforestation, and soil erosion...and it
can cause harmful air pollution…
Lines 15 and 17 showed that Maria’s explanation was based on her opinion and did not provide
any evidence. Chelsea wanted to push Maria further and get more information from her (Line
16). Although Chelsea attempted to press her group members further for more elaborative
explanations, however she shortly shifted her attention to Jeremiah with the same question (Line
18) and then to Maria regarding to a different question (Line 20). In Line 23, Maria cites a
strong scientific evidence regarding supporting her claim (Line 21). Maria probably would not
provide such a valid justification, if Chelsea did not push her further (Line 22).
Day1 - Fragment 4
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 53
(26) Chelsea: Maria, you were stating that you would not use it due to trees being cut down and
you need wood and wood is a renewable resource. So, what if we planted as much as we cut
down?
(27) Maria: Well, it could help, but it could take… Do you know how many years it takes for a
tree to actually grow?
(28) Chelsea: Yeah, it takes a very long time.
(29) Maria: I do not think we have patience for that long.
Chelsea started her conversation in Line 26 by summarizing what Maria said before. Afterward,
she made Maria to make predictions by posing a question (Line 26). However, Chelsea’s
question would have been more scientifically correct if Chelsea had said “planted more than we
cut down” rather than “if we planted as much as we cut down.”
Day1 - Fragment 5
(31) Chelsea: OK, but biomass (inaudible) produces gas, used for cooking and heating, so, what
would you rather want: trees or living in the nice house?
(32) Jeremiah and Maria: laughter
(33) Chelsea: What would you rather prefer?
(34) Maria: I believe you should cut a certain amount of trees (inaudible…)
(35) Chelsea: I agree with you, that we should not distort the roots of trees; we should cut parts
of it.
(36) Maria: At least, like trees, that already are dead, at least trees that look dead.
(37) Chelsea: So, we should cut partial parts of dead trees.
Chelsea posed this question to Maria and Jeremiah. Although this question did not require
scientific thinking and explanation, it has raised ethical, social and moral issues. This question
helped Jeremiah, Maria and Chelsea herself to come up with the idea of cutting dead parts
instead of living parts of the trees for biomass use. Despite of the fact that the researcher had
included ‘Moral Reasons” subtopic in the suggested discussion items’ outline, the students did
not notice it, because they were not using the outline at all.
Day1 - Fragment 6
(54) Chelsea: Now, in the beginning that I had documented, you said that you will not use it,
because it causes habitat loss, air pollution.
(55) Maria: All right.
(56) Chelsea: Why did you change your mind?
(57) Maria: Well, to be truly honest about this, there are other alternatives besides biomass. But
overall, of course our benefits to like sun fuels also affects. But either way, I would just use it
(58) Chelsea: OK, so you would use it to your advantage. Well, it seems to do not care about the
trees anymore.
The comment (Line 54) was directed to Maria. Chelsea’s question on line 56 was a powerful
question which made Maria think critically and make analysis about her own thinking. There is
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 54
evidence in the transcripts of the recording that Maria at the beginning of discussion had stated
that she would not use biomass; she also brought up some evidence in order to support her
claim. Shortly after the discussion turned into moral and ethical issues involving biomass, more
specifically the usage of wood, Maria had changed her mind and then stated that she would use
biomass. So, in this fragment Chelsea was trying to understand Maria’s reasoning for changing
her mind .Chelsea’s question made Maria think analytical, who started to look at another way as
a solution to a problem.
Day2 - Fragment 1
1. How are plant material and organic matter important for human health?
2. What do you think would happen to the environment if we cut down more trees?
a. We would lose habitats and the ecosystem wouldn’t be balanced.
3. What are the weaknesses of biomass fuel?
a. It destroys habitats and requires tree cutting.
4. How could gasohol be used to decrease air pollution?
a. It is healthier air than fossil fuels. It causes less air pollution.
5. Explain why biomass is necessary?
a. It helps with cooking/ heating.
6. What is the difference between fossil fuels and gasohol?
a. Fossil fuels pollute the air, but gasohol doesn’t as much.
7. How are gasohol and fossil fuels similar?
8. How can biomass be used to damage the environment?
9. What does biomass mean?
10. Explain how biomass helps humans survive.
11. How does biomass relate to solar energy?
12. Give an example of how biomass is used.
Day2 – Fragment 2
(3) After the prolonged silence, Chelsea started: “So, the first question could be like…hmm, so
biomass is basically like plant material and organic matter, so…”
(4) Barbara: It could be like what is it? (Barbara came up with low level question)
(5) Chelsea: (Chelsea did not comment to Barbara, but rather tried to come up with her own
high level thinking question.) Hmm, it could it be like…
(6) Maria: What page are we on?
(7) Chelsea: 496, how, hmm, how are plant materials and manure important for human health?
You see that? Also, while we are writing we have to answer it too.
(8) Maria: So, how plant materials…
(9) Chelsea: … and organic materials are important for human health?
(10) Chelsea: Then the second one… What do you think would happen to…? What do you think
would happen to…? (This response came after a considerable delay.)
(11) Barbara: … energy sources? (Barbara continued finishing up a question which Chelsea
started to generate.)
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 55
(12) Maria: … to an environment if we cut down more trees? (Maria also tried to use the same
question starter as Chelsea started to use, however she chose to come up with a different
question.)
(13) Chelsea: OK (It seemed that Chelsea agreed with Maria’s, not Barbara’s question.)
(14) Chelsea: And then for the third question we can say: What are the weaknesses of biomass
fuel?
(15) Maria: Umm (It seems that Maria easily agreed with Chelsea’s question.)
(16) Barbara: So, what are the weaknesses of biomasses? (Barbara was just clarifying the
question that Chelsea proposed, since she was jotting down the exact same question as the rest of
the group members were writing.)
(17) Chelsea: Biomass fuel (Chelsea confirmed.)
This fragment demonstrates Chelsea’s continued dominance during discussions in Day 2.
Day3 – Fragment 1
(1) Chelsea: OK, who wants to be a leader?
(2) Chelsea: I guess I will be.
(3) Taishae: Yeah
(4) Chelsea: Oh, I guess I will be the leader. Hmm, so we are doing biomass, so, you did not get
your textbook?
(5) Taishae: No
(6) Chelsea: Ms., can they go upstairs and get their books because we are going to divide the
work? (The researcher did not want student leave the classroom, so she suggested utilizing
whatever materials they had)
(7) Chelsea: Do you want to do environmental reasons?
(8) Taishae: I will
(9) Chelsea: Who wants to do economical reasons?
(10) Barbara: I’ll do that.
(11) Maria: I want to do that, I am sorry
(12) Taishae: Laughing…
(13) Chelsea: And national security reasons... I will do that. I love the military and FBI
(14) Chelsea: Moral reasons, Taishae, you are doing this.
(15) Taishae: Oh, what??
(16) Chelsea: Green energy and jobs.
(17) Taishae: OK, I am doing that.
(18) Chelsea: Barbara, you are doing that…
(19) Barbara: I am doing nothing
(20) Chelsea: Yes, you are… You are doing…
(21) Maria: Economical…
(22) Chelsea: You are doing “Green energy and innovation.” Maria that is what you are doing,
OK?
(23) Maria: All right
This short exchange showed how students in this group effectively divided the job among the
group members. Not everything went smoothly though. It seemed that both Barbara and Maria
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 56
wanted to work on the “Economical Reasons” subtopic. Maria took over the subtopic that
Barbara wanted to work on (Line 11) and Barbara was disappointed that she did not get her
desired subtopic (Line 19). However, Chelsea quickly recognized this problem and was able to
smoothly rearrange the subtopics (Line 22), and Maria acquiesced (Line 23).
Day 3 - Fragment 2
(32) Maria: What do you mean green energy and innovation?
(33) Chelsea: What?
(34) Maria: What does it mean? What does this topic mean?
(35) Barbara: The green jobs are jobs that are… (inaudible)
(36) Maria: But there is an innovation…
(37) Chelsea: Innovation, I am pretty sure is like … (silence). I do not know
(38) Chelsea: Do you guys know what innovation means?
(39) Taishae: Innovation? No, not sure.
This discussion fragment shows that the entire group was engaged in dialogue. Maria felt
comfortable asking her question about the innovation (Lines 32, 34 & 36). Although her group
members were not able to assist her, they made an effort to help (Lines 33, 35, 37 & 38). It was
also apparent from this dialogue that Chelsea was comfortable with her role. Even though she
was not able to help her group and was asking the rest of the group members for suggestions,
she was very open and honest about that (Line 38).
Day 3 - Fragment 3
(44) Chelsea: So, national security
(45) Taishae: 96
(46) Chelsea: National security is like a protection of United States. Biomass is like plant
materials and stuff. But it’s biomass fuel, so…
(47) Taishae: How is it harmful to people and whatever?
(48) Chelsea: The topic is “How is it harmful?” or how is it like?
(49) Taishae: I mean, if you are doing national security
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(56) Chelsea: Biomass fuel is an energy source and national security is to have tanks, and all of
the weapons.
(57) Maria: Wait, but would that effect the economy though?
(58) Chelsea: I do not think it would, because biomass fuel is actually… like causes less air
pollution. That is the health side of it. But would it cost more to have it?
(59) Taishae: As an energy source?
(60) Chelsea: Yeah
(61) Taishae: I wonna think so. Yes, it would, ‘cause…
(62) Chelsea: Like a fossil fuel (inaudible) as an energy source
(63) Maria: I think the energy source would possibly cost more that is what I wrote
(64) Chelsea: They do less harm
(65) Maria: It will do less harm but it will cost more
(66) Taishae: For environmental reasons, why biomass is a good source of energy or…
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 57
(67) Maria: Can we say how environmental reasons are good or how they are bad
(68) Chelsea: Explain the benefits of having biomass fuel in the weaponadary world.
(69) Maria: I have a trouble putting mine into a question.
In this exchange Chelsea raised a question about the national security. All group members,
except Barbara, were contributing to the discussion of this question. In contrast to Day 2,
Taishae was actively participating by asking questions and suggesting ideas. However, his
questions steered the group off the discussion topic: the national security. The question that he
raised in Line 47 made Chelsea to clarify her questioning (Line 48). It is not clear why Taisahe
brought up the “harmfulness” of national security. Their task was to focus on advantages, not
disadvantages, of the renewable energy sources. It is evident from Line 56 that Chelsea
understood what biomass was. However, she had no clear understanding about the connection
between the national security and renewable energies. Maria brought up a good question (Line
57) that could have steered the discussion in the right direction. However, it did not catch the
group’s attention. This segment showed friendly peer interaction, active student participation
(except Barbara), and a warm environment that allowed each student to make contribution.
However, it did not turn out to be a productive discussion because students were not able to put
separate pieces (biofuel and national security) together to form the big picture: the US oil
dependency on Middle East and its impact on the national security.
Day 4 - Fragment 1
(98) Chelsea:Barbara, what is your opinion of biomass and cost and disadvantages?
(99) Barbara: Can you repeat that again?
(100) Chelsea: Your opinion about cost and disadvantages of biomass. Would you use it?
(101) Barbara: No
(102) Chelsea: Why not?
(103) Barbara: Because it is too expensive.
(104) Chelsea: Too expensive?
(105) Barbara: Yeah
(106) Chelsea: I ask you: fossil fuels are cheaper but harmful to the air that we breathe. So,
would you rather use a cheap stuff with bad quality or expensive things that could create a
healthy environment?
(107) Taishae: But biomass is…
(108) Chelsea: Wait, wait, wait, this is hers… (Referring to Barbara)
(109) Maria: It is not your turn
(110) Taishae: Oh, my bad…
(111) Barbara: (14) S2: The cheaper there is, the worse there is…
(112) Chelsea: Fossil fuels are cheaper than fossil fuels, but are more harmful.
(113) Taishae: Aha
(114) Chelsea: Biomass is more expensive, but it creates healthier environment.
(115) Barbara: So, let’s use a biomass, because it is healthy for the environment.
(116) Taishae: No, not really. Because if you are destroying the habitats and animals, causing
the animals to go extinct, then you are messing up the food chain, then it will cause other
problems…
(117) Barbara: Yeah, but wouldn’t it be worse, if we use the other one?
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 58
(118) Taishae: Yeah, you are damaging the ozone layer and blah blah blah
(119) Chelsea:Look, you are using fossil fuels, and these fossil fuels are in our cars. You are
polluting the air and every single day we breathe that air. If that is more… We are breathing in
air. If you think about it, personally, if it came to me…
(120) Taishae: It is a loose-loose situation.
(121) Cheslea: Yeah, If it came to me and animals, and I am breathing like harmful air, I would
honestly choose a biomass, even though…
(122) Taishae: Yeah, what’s wrong?
(123) Chelsea:Yeah, either way, renewable or nonrenewable it harms the environment.
(124) Taishae: I do not know about solar energy though
This fragment of conversation shows how certain talk moves and questioning skills posed by the
facilitator (Chelsea)can engage non-talkative students into discourse. The transcripts of the
recordings, the field notes and the researcher’s observations showed that Barbara rarely
participated in the group discussion. The group facilitator invited Barbara into the group
discussion by asking Barbara share her opinion on a biomass, including its cost and
disadvantages (Line 98). The facilitator also held Barbara accountable for her answers by
bringing up pressing questions (Lines 102,104 & 106). This strategy did not discourage
Barabara from participating; moreover, she seemed comfortable with answering those questions
and expressing herself (Lines 101103, 105, 111, 115 & 117). Although some of her justifications
were incomplete, the dialogue between Barbara and Chelsea made Barbara’s thinking visible.
Another interesting section of this fragment was Taishae’s attempt of interjecting his thoughts
into the conversation. Both the facilitator and Mariareminded Taishae that it was Barbara’ss
turn (Lines 108 & 109) and Taishae respectfully acknowledged his “mistake” (Line 110). This
example provides another evidence of a positive, friendly group environment where students
were highly respectful toward each other.
Day 4 - Fragment 2
(162) Chelsea: See with my argument is, that biomass does harm tress, does harm the animals,
but so the fossil fuels. Fossil fuels harm humans more.
(163) Taishae: Not really, it does not harm humans.
(164) Maria: Yes, it does
(165) Chelsea: Fossil fuels don’t hurt humans??
(166) Taishae: I said not that much, not in a major way, that human die right away.
(167) Chelsea: It will take years…We are breathing oxygen that has harmful chemicals in it
(168) Taishae But isn’t it take long time to cut down a lot of trees But if you are using a biomass
as a, as a …fuel, you need
(169) Chelsea: There are millions, billions of trees in the world
(170) Taishae: Yes, but if you are using biomass for energy source, you are going to need
millions of millions of trees …
(171) Chelsea: So, do you think there is an alternative source instead of cutting down trees?
(172) Taisshae: I do not know. What else can you use?
(173) Chelsea: Exactly
(174) Taishae: What about the oxygen in the air? First of all, you still pollute an air.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 59
(175) Chelsea:But with the fossil fuels is the same thing. Can you please define the fossil fuels
and their impact on the environment?
(176) Taishae: I could do that but it is not gonna work that way.
(177) Chelsea: So, your argument is invalid.
Laughing in the background
In this fragment the conversation was mostly between the facilitator and Taishae. The facilitator
was the proponent of a biomass whereas Taishae was arguing for fossil fuels. The beginning of
this conversation was pretty simple with both students stating their opinions without providing
any justification and/or evidence for their statements (Lines 163 and 164). After the facilitator
questioned the accuracy of Taishae’s statement that fossil fuels did not harm humans (Lines 163
& 165), more productive student talk followed. The students began to elaborate more and started
making valid points (166-173). For example, in line 170, Taishae brought up a good counter-
argument against the facilitator’s argument (Line 169) that the biomass usage was not a good
choice. Although the facilitator did not admit it, Line 170’s counter-argument seemed to make
her rethink about her initial position regarding the biomass usage. Likewise, it made her think
about alternative energy sources instead of cutting down trees (Line 171).
Day 4 - Fragment 3
(184) Barbara: So, when it comes down to you, would use fossil fuels?
(185) Taishae: Yes
(186) Chelsea: Why?
(187) Taishae: Because fossil fuels, they damage the ozone whatever, layer, so does biomass.
But, if you are taking trees, you are removing oxygen.
(188) Chelsea: OK, you stated that fossil fuels damage ozone layer…
(189) Taishae: So, the biomass.
(190) Chelsea: You said it that?
(191) Taishae: Yes…
(192) Chelsea: OK, if we continue using fossil fuels, what… we would be…
(193) Taishae: Yeah, but so biomass does it too, if you burn trees
(194) Chelsea and Maria together: Yes, but slowly
(195) Taishae:But it is still damaging…
(196) Maria It is damaging but slowly
(197) Taishae: You are loosing oxygen too, because you are cutting down trees
(198) Chelsea: If we continue using fossil fuels they are going ran away.
(199) Taishae: Not really. How long we have been using fossil fuels?
Silence…
(200) Chelsea: Like…
(201) Taishae: A lot of years, right? It is not ended
(202) Chelsea: Not yet. So, you do not like biomass, because it harms animals, but you are
gonna use fossil fuels…
(203) Taishae: Not just animals. If you take away animals and
(204) Chelsea: Yes, we depend on animals too.
(205) Taishae: Not just the animals though. If bigger animals depend on smaller animals and
bigger animals starve, and then, if big animals starve…
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 60
(206) Chelsea: Yeah, but if you use fossil fuels, its going to harm the ozone layer anyway.
(207) Taishae: Yeah, but if you are harming the ozone layer with biomass, I think you are
limiting the oxygen level because you are cutting trees; it’s like two things that impact life. Not
just animals and humans.
(208) Chelsea: I disagree.
(209) Taishae: Of course you disagree, because you want to be right. But you are not right.
(210) Chelsea: I am right.
(211) Taishae: No, you are not
Although this passage has demonstrated that Taishaewas knowledgeable about the ecological
significance of interdependence (Lines 203, ,205 & 207), it was evident from the transcription
that both the Chelsea and Taishae had misconceptions about the connection between burning of
the fossil fuels and damaging of the ozone layer (Line 187, 206 & 207). It was obvious that
students either were not aware of or got confused that burning fossil fuels had no impact on the
ozone layer, but rather it created pollution in the troposphere. The depletion of the ozone layer
was caused by the release of certain chemicals, such as CFCs, to the atmosphere. Another
evidence against this misconception would be that while we continue using fossil fuels more
extensively nowadays than 30 years ago, the ozone layer seemed to recover significantly during
recent decades. Taishae brought up a point that cutting down trees was not a good idea since it
would decrease the level of oxygen (Line 197). The facilitator rebutted this argument by
providing a counter-argument that the dependence on fossil fuels was not a good idea either
since we would eventually ran out of them (Line 198). Taishae rebutted the facilitator’s counter-
argument by stating that we had been using fossil fuels for a long time yet we had not run out of
them yet (Lines 199 & 201). The facilitator could have argued against this faulty assumption by
providing a scientific explanation about the formation of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, she just
shortly answered “not yet” and shifted the conversation toward Taishae’s other argument
(Line202). Although the friendly environment was apparent in this group throughout all four
days, the last dialogue between the facilitator andTaishae showed that the whole point of
argumentation was “being right,” “being a winner” (Lines 208, ,209 ,210 & 211). This passage
has demonstrated that although students were highly respectful to each other, their arguments
were directed toward each other rather than at each other’s ideas. A similar phenomenon was
not observed before.
Day 4 - Fragment 4
(221) Chelsea: Basically any resource you use it’s slowly killing
(222) Taishae I do not know about solar power though, because I do not how that harms
anything. The sun is energy source; we use it anyway.
(223) Chelsea: Yes, we use it all the time, every day. But majority of resources we use harm the
air as much as (inaudible)
(224) Taishae: But if you harm the air and we cut down trees, you are limiting oxygen. So we
are doing two things harmful. But if just damage the air with air pollution, is OK. But if you are
using biomass, damaging air, cutting down trees and lessening oxygen…
(225) Chelsea: What do you mean it is OK?
(226) Taishae: With the biomass you are harming the air and you lessen oxygen, because you
cut down trees.
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 61
(227) Maria: He got his points…
(228) Chelsea: No, I disagree with that.
(229) Taishae: Why?
(230) Chelsea: I would use biomass; you can use your fossil fuels.
(231)nTaishae: Ok, think in this way. If you are using fossil fuels, right, you are damaging the
ozone layer, right? And that is bad. But if you are using biomass you are damaging ozone and
that is bad, but you are limiting oxygen because you are cutting down trees.
In Line 221 Chelsea made a general statement that “any resource you use is slowly killing.”
Taishae subtly objected to Chelsea’s generalization by saying that he was not sure about the
solar energy meaning that he was not convinced that the solar energy had any harmful effects
(Line 222). Chelsea backtracked from his initial statement and, essentially, agreed with
Taishae’s objections (Line 223). The rest of this conversation was very similar to previous
conversations. It seemed that both students did not change their perception about the usefulness
of a biomass; moreover, they stayed pretty firm in their beliefs. A couple of questioning
techniques utilized by Chelsea and Taishae made the scientific talk more productive (Lines 225
and 229). In this fragment Taishae provided valid evidence and reasoning for supporting his
claim. His argument was that by using biomass, we were not only polluting the atmosphere (just
like with fossil fuels), but we were also decreasing the levels of oxygen (Lines 224,, 226 & 231).
In this short fragment, Taishae seemed more passionate about his claim whereas the facilitator
wanted to maintain her claim without providing any supporting data (Line 230).
Day 4 - Fragment 5
(300) Chelsea: Actually, it is a healthier gas
(301) Taishae: Just because it is healthier air, it does not mean it is healthy in general
(302) Chelsea: Yeah, it does not mean it is healthy in general. It is healthier than fossil fuels.
(303) Taishae: How is it healthier to humans but yet like all the other things you are doing not
just about… would not be?
…………….
(304) Maria:
The prices are gonna go high
(305) Taishae: They gonna rely more one corn and then they need to grow it
(306) Barbara: It’s gonna get higher
(307) Chelsea: I think it would be in demand
(308) Chelsea: If we depend on corn, corn will be in demand, we even may ran out
(309) Taishae: Of course you are going to ran out, because you can not plant corn all year
around, unless you are doing it not naturally.
(310) Taishae: It will cost more
(311) Maria: It will cost higher, the cost will be average until the corn will be decreasing and
will cost more
(312) Maria: Oh, we talked for about 40 minutes
(313) Taishae: I win
(314) Chelsea: No, you did not
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 62
Some students were able to employ counter-arguments very effectively, without any training or
help provided by the researcher (Line 301). This explanation contains a reasoning component. It
showed that scaffolding was an important pedagogical strategy that needed to be implemented in
any lesson. When students were left on their own, even though they got engaged in a great
conversation, they were focused on just cutting trees as a biomass source. But biomass is not just
about wood; it is also about dung, methane generated from decomposed organic wastes, and
ethanol as a source of gasohol. When students’ attention got shifted from wood to other biomass
sources, students were able to generate explanations and predictions about them (Lines 304-
311). Some explanations contained a valid reasoning (Line 301), and some provided
explanations included both an evidence and reasoning (Line 309). There were explanations
where students used scientific predictions in order to explain their proposed scenario (Lines
304,, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310, and 311).
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 63
APPENDIX C
Table 1 (Day 1)
Lower
Level
Questions
Higher
Level
Questions
Student Total
number of
remembering
questions
Total number
of
understanding
questions
Total
number
of
applying
questions
Total
number
of
analyzing
questions
Total
number
of
evaluating
questions
Total
number of
creating
questions
Chelsea
(F)
3 2 0 3 10 0
Maria 1 0 0 0 0 0
Jeremiah 1 0 0 0 0 0
Table 2 (Day 1)
Student Total
number of
questions
Total
number
of lower
level
questions
Total
number
of higher
level
questions
Total number
of procedural
questions
Total
number of
clarifying
questions
Chelsea
(F)
23 5 13 1 4
Maria 2 1 0 0 1
Jeremiah 3 1 0 0 2
Student Total
number of
questions
Total
number
of lower
level
questions
Total
number
of higher
level
questions
Total number
of procedural
questions
Total
number of
clarifying
questions
Chelsea
(F)
33 2 21 2 8
Maria 8 1 2 1 4
Barbara 5 0 4 0 1
Taishae 28 4 13 0 11
Running Head: QUESTIONING PATTERNS DURING DISCUSSIONS 64
Table 3 (Day 4)
Table 4 (Day 4)
Lower
Level
Questions
Higher
Level
Questions
Student Total
number of
remembering
questions
Total number
of
understanding
questions
Total
number
of
applying
questions
Total
number
of
analyzing
questions
Total
number
of
evaluating
questions
Total
number of
creating
questions
Chelsea
(F) 1 1 1 4 14 2
Maria 1 0 0 1 0 1
Barbara 0 0 0 1 1 2
Taishae 4 0 0 4 8 1